Waugh brothers remained illiterate in the education of hooking and pulling, even Ajinkya Rahane has a better hook shot.

Steve Waugh could play the shot, he just opted not to because he felt it was too risky. And Mark frustrated the WI quicks by backing away and uppercutting, which was more effective because they didn't have a man out at third man for the catch.

...he never played on spinning wickets in India, pacey pitches in the West Indies or raging seamers in New Zealand.

This is one of the numerous misconceptions about Bradman and his era. The Australian wickets, pre war atleast, were fast. Modern WI pitches have been slow though that has been offset by some truly awful pitches in some cases.

People say stats alone cannot decide the greatness of a player, but the only thing which they use to prove Bradman's greatness is his stats(and a few stories of course, but the only valid point they have is his stats).

Performance of a player against the minnows is never taken seriously, but in Bradman's case, they do take it very very seriously, his performance against the three hopeless minnows(out of the 4 inferior teams he played against) should never ever be questioned

Never agree that Bradman played on the flattest decks ever and the only difficulty in his time were the sticky wickets where he failed.

And if someone questions Bradman's greatness, you label him a Tendulkar fan even if his not and start taking the discussion off topic.

People say stats alone cannot decide the greatness of a player, but the only thing which they use to prove Bradman's greatness is his stats(and a few stories of course, but the only valid point they have is his stats).

Performance of a player against the minnows is never taken seriously, but in Bradman's case, they do take it very very seriously, his performance against the three hopeless minnows(out of the 4 inferior teams he played against) should never ever be questioned

Never agree that Bradman played on the flattest decks ever and the only difficulty in his time were the sticky wickets where he failed.

And if someone questions Bradman's greatness, you label him a Tendulkar fan even if his not and start taking the discussion off topic.

Playing on flat decks doesn't explain Bradman's average, as the greatest batsman of the era returned numbers consistent with great batsmen of every other era.

I don't see how you can be so flippant in dismissing statistics either given that Bradman dominates every statistical category you can think of.

Yep, our raging seamers would have taken him down a peg or two. Daryl Tuffy would have torn him a new one.

I can send you the document if you've lost it.

Funny you should mention it considering how Tendulkar and friends went in 2002 down here.

Instead of crying about the pitches they would have done well to look in the mirror.

Originally Posted by Athlai

Jeets doesn't really deserve to be bowling.

Originally Posted by Athlai

Well yeah Tendy is probably better than Bradman, but Bradman was 70 years ago, if he grew up in the modern era he'd still easily be the best. Though he wasn't, can understand the argument for Tendy even though I don't agree.